The London Police Are Coming For Julian Assange, And Someone's Live Streaming It

Reports coming out of the UK right now indicate that London police have just entered the Ecuadorian embassy in London where Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is shacking up to arrest the Australian before he skips the country for asylum in Ecuador. The internet being what it is, some wonderful Londoner has wandered down to the embassy to live stream it. Watch live here.

At the time of publication, the guy broadcasting is talking about the cult of Julian Assange. We’ll update this as more things happen.

Update: Let’s be clear, the guys on this stream aren’t scholarly experts on Wikileaks or the legal system, nor are they impartial. Supporters have been camping outside this embassy since Assange sought asylum there in July and this live stream is now kicking off.

The Swedes say they want him "for questioning", but they've declined to actually question him at every opportunity they've been offered. It's also worth noting that the Swedish authorities explicitly allowed him to leave Sweden in the first place - then changed their minds, and tried to extradite him back again.

Now it's turning into a major diplomatic incident. High stakes for not wearing a condom, don't you think?

Contrary to popular beliefs, the embassy building is not sovereign territory and is still wholly owned by the host country. Although article 22 of the Vienna Convention states "The premises of a diplomatic mission, such as an embassy, are inviolate and must not be entered by the host country except by permission of the head of the mission. Furthermore, the host country must protect the mission from intrusion or damage. The host country must never search the premises, nor seize its documents or property."
Regardless, should the British Government revoke the Ecuadorian governments embassy, they still have no right under international law (having signed the treaty) to just storm in, as the ambassador and his staff and family (and by extension their residences and embassy) are still under legal protection within reasonable time. That right there is the British doing what ever they damn like.

Since they're clearly not going to leave the guy alone I almost hope they just martyr him, the last couple of years of his life have been a picturebook on how governments do whatever the hell they like.

Until now a lot of people would have had a smidgen of doubt, maybe, just maybe Assange is guilty of the crime he's being accused of. This should put those doubts to rest, there is no way that the UK would risk causing an international incident because Assange committed a sex crime.

I'll be surprised if he gets any sort of trial in Sweden, he'll arrive in the US before anyone can say "WTF ".

I also loved how the US tried to pretend that hardly anyone knows who he is and that it was all about manning, even though you had the likes of Rush Limbaugh calling for him to be tried for treason (which, is not possible as you cannot try someone for treason against a country they are not a citizen of, at least not without getting yourself labeled as an extremely authoritarian country)

Also, if this was truly about the sexual assault case and nothing else, there would be no outstanding sexual assault cases in Sweden , because if they went to this much time, effort, money and diplomatic wrangling for everyone accused, the vast majority of them would be caught in days.

Here's an Australian citizen being pursued by about 3 major countries (so far) without even being charged with a crime, yet his native country is not only doing nothing, but in fact pre-emptively declared him to be a criminal - despite the AFP's advice that he had broken no AU laws.

Also interesting to note that Australia recently "streamlined" its extradition laws fairly drastically...

I've gotta wonder, of this is all REALLY just about Sweden wanting to interview him regarding suspicion of "minor rape" (itself a seeming contradiction in terms), then why is Britain prepared to abandon it's treaty obligations? Not only would this damage the trust which other nations place in Britain (i.e. countries might reasonably doubt that Britain will live up to treaty obligations in future), but it would set a precedent which could potentially place British diplomats and their staff at risk in other countries (i.e. other countries may feel less obligated to respect British embassies when Britain itself ignores the very treaty which obliges them to do so). I also imagine that it would be rather embarrassing for the British govt. to end up defending itself before an intentional court over this, as it very well could if it follows through on its threats. Given the seriousness of what Britain is in threatening to do here relative to the seriousness of the alleged offense (especially considering that Britain has in past been willing to overlook the MURDER OF A BRITISH POLICE OFFICER to keep Lybian diplomats sweet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Yvonne_Fletcher), the notion that this whole circus has anything to do with Assange's sexual conduct just went from pretty implausible to absolutely bat-shit crazy.

Britain would be perfectly within its legal rights to dissolve the entire embassy, expel all the diplomats, and simply collect Assange from what would then be an ordinary office block. But doing so would seriously piss off Ecuador, and make a lot of other countries think twice about Britain in the future. They wouldn't do it lightly.

So it makes you wonder why they're threatening to do more or less that (nullify an embassy's legal protections), over what is supposed to be questioning over a moderate offense in a different country. Assange has clearly made some powerful enemies, who are apparently applying heavy pressure.

The facts are that Julian Assange has broken the terms of his bail to hide in a foreign embassy to avoid a high-court ruled extradition to Sweden. Sweden want him to answer to two counts of sexual assault. Ecuador is sticking up for him as they don't like the US - make no mistake, Ecuador has a poor human rights record (http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/world-report-2012-ecuador), so this is not decision on moral grounds. Ecuador are claiming the US want to torture him so he's a refugee. If the US wanted to extradite him, it would make more sense to extradite him from the UK, where they have a stronger treaty - why wait until he gets to Sweden? To be extradited from Sweden would require signoff from the UK and Sweden, which would not be legal if he faced potential torture or the death penalty.
Sexual assault is not a political crime and he is not a political refugee. He is abusing the system and avoiding providing the victims an opportunity in court.